A quick survey of the latest headlines will show what appears to be an all-out war in the dietary advice world. On the one hand, the woefully misguided talk of a 'meat tax' is all over the headlines after a 'study' came out saying it will, surprise surprise, save lives. Yet the LA Times just published an article that's getting a lot of traction titled 'The case against carbohydrates gets stronger', similar to the title of Dr. David Ludwig's widely circulated article 'The case for a low-carb diet is stronger than ever'. The battle lines are being drawn, vegans versus carnivores, high carb versus low carb, Dr. Shawn Baker versus Dr. Neal Barnard. Or so it would seem.

While there's little doubt this is confusing the public to no end (as evidenced by the growing number of Youtube videos on the 'vegan ketogenic diet', a vain attempt to meet opposing dietary advocates in the middle), the argument really should be framed for what it is - the attempt of truth and science to overcome the push from monolithic government bodies and industry. No matter who wins the headline war, which is really a fixed game, the number of people out there cutting the carbs and getting healthier as a result, is making waves.

So give another point to team carb! Paleo can suck it. Ketogenic is nothing but a slow decline via carb-deficiency in the making. All these low-carbers are going to die early after losing their minds to dementia. THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR GOING AGAINST GOVERNMENT REGULATED EATING GUIDELINES. You get death. Death and crazy.

Not so fast. Despite the headline, and the pictures of bread and pasta in the body, the study they're reporting on isn't actually about carbohydrates being good for dementia (or longevity). Taking the evidence that calorie restriction leads to longevity and better brain health, combined with the evidence that eating as much as you want of carbohydrates while limiting protein leads to longevity, but that no evidence exists that this same diet would also lead to better brain health as calorie restriction does, the study authors decided to see if eating high carb, low protein confers the same benefits to the brain as calorie restriction (hope you followed that). They found evidence that it kind of does.

In conclusion, both CR [calorie restriction] and LPHC [low protein, high carbohydrate] diets impacted on brain aging in the hippocampus. Although the behavioral and cognitive changes were subtle, there were more dramatic effects on gene expression, protein activity, and dendritic spine morphology. Overall, the lowest protein, highest carbohydrate diets (5% and 10% protein) generated changes, which approached those seen with CR. A very low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet may be a feasible nutritional intervention to delay brain aging.

So they didn't see much in terms of behaviour changes, but many of the markers they measured seemed to be close to what is seen in CR. But, and this is interesting, the same thing has been found in diets that restrict protein but have enough fat to reach satiety (a ketogenic diet, in other words). This has been speculated as the mechanism by which ketogenic diets work - by mimicking caloric restriction without actually restricting any calories. After all, calorie restriction is more or less impossible for humans to maintain. It's easy enough to force mouse prisoners to eat less than they would normally, but humans not under forced confinement only have so much willpower.

So what do these three dietary patterns - calorie restriction; high carb-restricted protein; and high fat-restricted protein - have in common? They all restrict protein. In the first case, when someone is cutting total caloric intake on a calorie restricted diet, they are in all likelihood cutting protein consumption. If both LPHC and LPHF (the F stands for fat) diets can mimic CR, it seems that much of the benefits to brain health and longevity alike can be ascribed to limiting the amount of protein. The fat or carbs seem rather irrelevant in this case - it's all about the protein. The fat or carbs are there to make it so you don't feel like you're starving. There's not enough evidence to know for sure, but this is certainly what's suggested.

But regardless, the Daily Mail is full of shit (what's new?). This study isn't a signal to go out and eat as many carbs as possible because it's going to somehow protect you from dementia. The carbohydrate probably had very little to do with the results the scientists saw. This study was trying to mimic a CR diet without CR and finding a possible way of doing that (other than the ketogenic diet, apparently; fat is bad, after all). And the mice in the study were not fed a diet "rich in bread, pasta and rice", as implied in the headline, they were fed industrially processed 'mouse chow' composed of an unidentified starch, casein protein (from milk) and soy oil. It was also done on mice, not humans, so the idea that loading up on bread, pasta and rice is going to give you the same effects seen in the study is highly, highly unlikely. This article is, unsurprisingly, complete bunk.

As for whether a LPHC diet is as beneficial as a LPHF diet, the jury is still out. This study is really not enough to say one way or another. I'm sure this study will provide vegans with some more ammunition to 'prove' their naturally high carb, low protein diet is superior, but there's really very little here to go on. However, given the already established detrimentaleffectsofcarbohydrate, (the brain's silent killers), and the benefitsofketogenicdiets, as well as the copious anecdotal stories of the health benefits of dropping carbs, my money is on keto.

Doug DiPasquale is a Holistic Nutritionist, Paleo enthusiast and health journalist living in Toronto, Canada. He's a regular contributor for SOTT.net, Dot Connector Magazine, the Huffington Post Canada, The Food Network Canada and has contributed to many other blogs and online publications. He's passionate about the food we eat, exposing the lies and faulty thinking of the "food police" and informing the public about how to eat real food, ie. replacing that wheatgrass shot with bacon.

Reader Comments

After reading that the entire AMERICAN wheat crop is completely saturated with Monsanto ROUNDUP just prior to harvest, I quit eating ANYTHING with wheat in it!! In 9 months I have lost 65 lbs, I am wearing the same size pants I wore in high school, and I feel great. Todays bread, isnt your grandmas bread,todays bread is poisoned

Let it be mandatory that every doctor, scientist, regulatory who thinks cereal grains are the cat's meow should therefore eat the stuff until it comes out their ears. So, we can more rapidly get rid of them all the faster.

What's interesting is the relationship between carbs and protein. As you point out, the restriction is NOT calorie restriction but Protein restriction. I think the benefits in the markers noted above, which would include MTOR, are probably a result of protein restriction. (a la Ron Rosedale)

Yet there are some, such as Mikhaila Peterson and others, who can not eat anything but protein, and report wonderful benefits, like being able to live in health instead of their previous sickness. Maybe they are heading for dementia? Could it be that the MTOR protein problem only surfaces when you eat carbs with protein? It could not be a problem with protein and fat because you can't eat protein without at least some fat. Perhaps that, plus the fact that most keto/carnivores only eat 1-2 meals per day, not the 3-6 meals a day dieticians prescribe, thus limiting the hazards of digestion and placing the body in repair-rejuvenate mode through intermittent fasting for most (80%+) of the day?

Yes, the study is BS, but you've made lemonade from a lemon with your insight. thanks

anartist I think you're right. While it seems that protein restriction is beneficial for some markers, I actually wonder if it's just a 'hack' that isn't totally necessary. I find it hard to believe that our paleolithic ancestors would arbitrarily limit the protein they were eating, reaching satiety on fat or carbs. I ate that way (high fat, limited protein) for a year or so several years back. I saw a lot of weight loss, but that type of eating is difficult, not particularly enjoyable and completely counter-intuitive. Without having markers to measure, I can't see why anyone would just fall into this type of eating naturally.

It remains to be seen if the carnivore diet can offer the same benefits (particularly if one is incorporating intermittent fasting/time-restricted feeding). The science just isn't there yet. But as you mentioned, at least anecdotally, people are benefiting. It may not effect the same markers as protein restriction, but there's benefit none the less.

anartist Wasn't the issue with the MTOR pathway also that if you eat 'too much' protein in one sitting, it essentially converted the excess proteins into sugar or glucose and that interefered with the production of certain markers or ketone production? So that seems rather strange that eating high amounts of carbs while limiting protein intake would produce similar results to calorie restriction.

Of course, everyone is different. One size does not fit all. Also, we change over time and conditions change. Learning what works for youself best is a constant endevor. As a young person, I was very much an omnivore. Today I eat 1 meal a day, low carb, but also usually meatless. 24 hour fasting works well for me.

Carbohydrates are un-natural and only recently introduced into human diet. The carbs come from stuff people plant and then harvest. Nature wants us to run after some animal, kill it, and bring it back to the tribe. Fat with a little protein, perhaps some berries in the summer. The high-fat part is what makes the difference. Bacon and eggs for breakfast, then something at dinner. That's all you need. I mix this with about 8 hours of aerobic activity per week will purge anything your body doesn't want. I'm 72 years old, have trouble keeping weight on, but 136 pounds seems to be where my "set point" is. I never feel hungry and can run for 8 hours at a time with no solid food, only water, and I feel great. We need the saturated fat to repair the nervous system. No fat = Alzheimer's.

I really believe the altzheimers, dementia and senility problems all stem from the massive prescribing of "STATINS"!! The brain needs 25 % of the bodies cholesterol in order to function properly. When you take statins, and eliminate the cholesterol AVAILABLE to your brain, you suffer dementia, senility, etc

After being tested by someone with the Quest4 system, (an extremely advanced biomeridan device) I was found to be allergic to all grains and seeds. After having diabetes for years and now only eating vegetables and meat and dairy my diabetes is on the mend. and NO i never took any doctors advice or drugs.